Personal Endorsement of Ambivalent Sexism and Career Success: an Investigation of Differential Mechanisms

Prior research on ambivalent sexism indicates that hostile and benevolent sexist attitudes together uphold the gender hierarchy or status quo. However, research has generally focused on the ambivalent sexism of others. The current study takes an alternative and complementary approach by examining whether, why, and for whom personal endorsement of hostile and sexist attitudes is related to career success. Integrating ambivalent sexism theory, resource management theories of career success, and social role theory, we theorize differential mechanisms via which hostile and benevolent sexism are divergently related to objective and subjective career success. Results revealed that gender had direct relationships with hostile sexism, whereas gender tended to also moderate relationships between benevolent sexism and choices and experiences at the work-family interface that could be prescribed by traditional gender roles (i.e., length of career interruptions and work-to-family conflict). Additionally, actions and choices that were more visible to others generally mediated relationships between sexist attitudes and objective career success (i.e., hostile sexism -> seeking career advice from men -> pay), whereas internal experiences and cognitions tended to mediate relationships between sexist attitudes and subjective career success (i.e., benevolent sexism -> work-family conflict -> satisfaction, but only for women). Overall, these results highlight the importance of studying whether, the process through which, personal endorsement of sexism influences work experiences, choices, and outcomes.